Attorney General Letitia James speaks during a press conference following a verdict against former U.S. President Donald Trump in a civil fraud trial on Feb. 16, 2024, in New York City.
ALBANY — Three years ago, the world’s largest producer of beef promised to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2040. Last month, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued the company, saying it will fall short of the goal.
At this point, some of you might be reaching for calendars with concern, wondering if you’ve napped like Rip Van Winkle. Not to worry. The self-imposed deadline set by meat producer JBS is still 16 years away, which is among the reasons James’ lawsuit is odd.
It’s as if you promised to lose 30 pounds by August and James demanded you step on a scale in March.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
But the Democratic attorney general argues that JBS, headquartered in Brazil, can’t meet its climate goals because of the methane produced by livestock and because, as the lawsuit says, “there are no proven agricultural practices to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to net zero at the JBS Group’s current scale, and offsetting those emissions would be a costly undertaking to an unprecedented degree.”
Therefore, JBS must be lying or at least greenwashing — selling itself as caring about the environment so that beef-eating consumers feel better about eating burgers.
“As families continue to face the daily impacts of the climate crisis, they are willing to spend more of their hard-earned money on products from brands that are better for the environment,” James said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. “When companies falsely advertise their commitment to sustainability, they are misleading consumers and endangering our planet.”
I doubt typical consumers of JBS meats know anything about the company’s climate goals. Most probably have never even heard of JBS, which sells its meat under other names or to fast-food joints.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
JBS is hardly alone in setting unrealistic environmental targets. If doing so amounts to consumer fraud, a legally novel argument, James could sue half the brands in your favorite grocery. She could also sue the state of New York.
As many of you will know, the state has promised to rely on 70 percent renewable electricity by 2030, to have a zero-emission electric grid in place by 2040 and to be effectively net zero by 2050.
At this point, most observers take it for granted that New York won’t meet the 2030 goal, established under the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, and the other targets are unlikely to be achieved without a full-scale embrace of nuclear power or a willingness to impose costs New Yorkers will never accept.
New York, you could say, is guilty of greenwashing — making residents feel better about living here than they should or deceiving them about the real impact of their energy usage.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Of course, 2040 and 2050 are a long way off, and there will almost certainly be technological advances that help New York’s attempt to meet the goals.
In fact, a good argument for New York’s climate targets is that they’ll encourage innovation by creating a market for technological progress. But the same could be true for the meat industry and JBS, which has invested heavily in the development of lab-grown meat. (Quick aside: Yuck.)
For the record, I’m predisposed against companies like JBS and industrialized agriculture more broadly, if only for the horrific way it treats animals. I can find little that’s positive about JBS’ environmental record, which includes alleged links to Amazon deforestation and has fueled bipartisan opposition to its bid to join the New York Stock Exchange.
Will JBS meet its 2040 climate promise? Few will be surprised if it doesn’t.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
But we don’t know that yet and neither does James. Leaving aside jurisdiction issues — JBS’ American headquarters are in Colorado — her lawsuit claiming that JBS is already guilty of consumer fraud is full of headline-generating sizzle but is otherwise lacking in substance.
Like many of James’ efforts, the lawsuit seems mostly about advancing her political career by pleasing progressive activists, the usual legal guardrails be damned. That isn’t what an attorney general should be up to, obviously, and it’s fair to wonder about the potential consequences of the JBS lawsuit.
For example, if companies can face legal headaches for setting green targets judged unrealistic by New York’s attorney general, the logical response would be to avoid setting environmental goals at all. After all, JBS wouldn’t be in trouble if it had kept its mouth shut or declared that it didn’t give a flip about the climate.
Advertisement
Article continues below this ad
Maybe JBS was too ambitious. Or maybe its executives were lying. Or maybe the truth lies somewhere in between.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Nikkei Editorial
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
visit website
